the challenges of models-based practice in physical ... · physical education teacher education: a...

Loughborough UniversityInstitutional Repository

The challenges ofmodels-based practice inphysical education teachereducation: a collaborative

self-study

This item was submitted to Loughborough University's Institutional Repositoryby the/an author.

Citation: FLETCHER, T. and CASEY, A., 2014. The challenges of models-based practice in physical education teacher education: a collaborative self-study. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 33 (3), pp. 403 - 421.

Additional Information:

• This is the as accepted for publication version of an article thatwas later published in the Journal of Teaching in Physical Educa-tion [ c© Human Kinetics]. The definitive version is available at:http://dx.doi.org/10.1123/jtpe.2013-0109

Metadata Record: https://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/2134/19549

Version: Accepted for publication

Publisher: c© Human Kinetics

Rights: This work is made available according to the conditions of the Cre-ative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International(CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) licence. Full details of this licence are available at:https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

Please cite the published version.

https://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/2134/19549

RUNNING HEADER: TEACHING TEACHERS THROUGH MBP

1

The challenges of models-based practice in physical education teacher education: A

collaborative self-study

TEACHING TEACHERS THROUGH MBP

2

Abstract 1

There are two purposes of this study. The first is to examine our experiences as 2

beginning teacher educators who taught using models-based practice (using the 3

example of Cooperative Learning). The second is to consider the benefits of using 4

collaborative self-study to foster deep understandings of teacher education practice. 5

The findings highlight the challenges in adapting school teaching practices to the 6

university setting, and the different types of knowledge required to teach about the 7

“hows” and “whys” of a models-based approach. We conclude by acknowledging the 8

benefits of systematic study of practice in helping to unpack the complexities and 9

challenges of teaching about teaching. Our collaborative self-study enabled us to 10

develop insights into the intertwined nature of self and practice, and the personal and 11

professional value of our research leads us to encourage teacher educators to examine 12

and share their challenges and understandings of teaching practice. 13

Keywords: teacher educators, pre-service teacher education, cooperative 14

learning, practitioner research, pedagogy 15

16


3

The challenges of models-based practice in physical education teacher education: A 17

collaborative self-study 18

The need for physical education to undergo pedagogical and curricular reform has led 19

some to suggest that unless radical change occurs the subject may have a short future; with 20

“futures talk” involving drastic reconceptualizing of the subject (Jewett, Bain, & Ennis, 1995; 21

Lawson, 2009; Penney & Chandler, 2000; Tinning, 2009). For example, Kirk’s (2010) 22

contemplation of the prospects for physical education led him to identify three potential 23

futures: more of the same, extinction, or radical reform. While Kirk felt that more of the same 24

was most likely, he suggested this was little more than a stay of execution from the inevitable 25

slide into extinction. In order to avoid extinction, there has been a significant and growing 26

voice calling for radical reform that centers on a number of empirically researched and 27

theoretically informed pedagogical models (Metzler, 2011; Haerens, Kirk, Cardon, & de 28

Bourdeaudhuij, 2011). 29

The integration of multiple pedagogical models into a models-based practice (MBP) 30

has been acknowledged as one avenue for the type of pedagogical and curricular reform 31

desired by physical education “futurists” (Gurvitch, Lund, & Metzler, 2008; Haerens, et al., 32

2011; Kirk, 2010). Specifically, MBP has been recognized as an alternative to the “current 33

and traditional ‘one-size-fits-all’, sport technique-based, multi-activity form” (Kirk, 2013, p. 34

2) that pervades many physical education programs. The benefits of a models-based approach 35

lie in the provision of opportunities for students to learn subject matter in some depth through 36

student-centered approaches, which address outcomes in multiple domains (i.e. psychomotor, 37

affective, and cognitive) (Metzler & McCullick, 2008). Evidence suggests that attending to 38

these diverse outcomes strongly influences the likelihood that students will engage in a 39

physically active lifestyle (Bailey, Armour, Kirk, Jess, Pickup, & Sandford, 2009). 40


4

However, if MBP is to become a sustainable means to pedagogical and curricular 41

reform, examination of the innovation needs to extend beyond school contexts. For example, 42

although research on the challenges of implementing MBP in schools has recently expanded 43

(Dyson & Casey, 2012; Harvey & Jarrett, 2013; Hastie, 2012), little attention has been paid 44

to the challenges of MBP in pre-service teacher education. Researchers at Georgia State 45

University (GSU) recognized this matter and conducted a large-scale study of how physical 46

education teachers learned “about and made decisions to adopt models-based instruction1” 47

(Gurvitch et al., 2008, p. 454). They considered the influence of the university physical 48

education teacher education (PETE) program at three stages of teachers’ development: pre-49

service (Gurvitch, Tjeerdsma Blankenship, Metzler, & Lund, 2008; Lund & Veal, 2008; 50

Metzler & McCullick, 2008), induction (Gurvitch & Tjeerdsma Blankenship, 2008), and 51

veteran (Lund, Gurvitch, & Metzler, 2008). Although there was general support for MBP 52

across all three stages of teachers’ development, a key finding concerned the powerful role of 53

PETE faculty as change agents in pre-service and veteran teachers’ decision-making 54

processes to adopt MBP (Metzler, Lund, & Gurvitch, 2008). While these findings hold 55

promise, the voice of the PETE faculty was largely silent. As such, while the GSU 56

researchers claim that their approach was impactful on the pre-service teachers who 57

completed the program, there was not a clear sense of how teacher educators made their 58

impact or the challenges they faced in doing so. When PETE programs have been identified 59

as perpetuating more of the same (Kirk, 2010), understanding the processes that lead to 60

successful implementation of MBP in the university setting is crucial. It is our belief that if 61

MBP is to become a preferred approach for physical education teachers, pre-service teacher 62

educators must similarly change how they teach. To this end, we used collaborative self-63 1 Gurvitch and colleagues prefer to use the term models-based instruction, while we prefer models-based practice (MBP). This term has gained increased significance on the field (c.f. Armour’s (2011) book “Sport Pedagogy”). However it is beyond the scope of this paper to discuss this decision in detail and we direct the reader to Haerens et al. (2012) for a thorough discussion of the semantics behind the choice to use certain terms when referring to models in physical education.


5

study to examine the challenges we faced as two teacher educators who taught using MBP in 64

PETE programs. 65

A unique feature of our study is the examination of physical education teacher 66

education practices through collaborative self-study. While several teacher educator-67

researchers have demonstrated the benefits of using collaborative self-study to unpack the 68

complexities involved in teaching teachers (Bullock & Ritter, 2011; Kitchen, Ciuffetelli 69

Parker, & Gallagher, 2008; Petrarca & Bullock, 2013), there are few examples in the physical 70

education literature. The examination of teacher education practices is being increasingly 71

recognized as a powerful way to both understand and communicate the problematic and 72

challenging circumstances of learning to teach (Zeichner, 1999). As Loughran (2013) 73

suggests, teacher education is a key location where deep understandings of pedagogy can be 74

developed, and so the work of teacher educators as inquirers of pedagogy becomes central to 75

the mission of developing a commitment to strong and innovative teaching practice. Teacher 76

educators thus have a responsibility to provide a glimpse inside their own teaching, 77

articulating the reasoning and assumptions behind the decisions they make while teaching, 78

thus making teaching a site of inquiry (Loughran, 2007). However, as Berry (2007) and 79

Bullock (2009) have shown, the complex nature of teaching sometimes means that teacher 80

educators are challenged or frustrated by trying to understand and explain their practice. 81

Although this task may prove difficult, it is worth undertaking because when pre-service 82

teachers are provided with access to thoughts and knowledge about problems of practice, 83

they are more likely to develop deeper understandings of pedagogy and teaching (Grossman 84

& McDonald, 2008). 85

Theoretical Framework 86

Models-based practice. The work of Metzler (2011) has been central to articulating a 87

practical and theoretical understanding of models in physical education. Metzler’s definition 88


6

of a “model” includes three aspects: (a) the foundations, (b) teaching and learning features, 89

and (c) implementation needs. Metzler (2011) identified eight models that have been used in 90

physical education: Cooperative Learning (CL) (Dyson & Casey, 2012; Dyson, Linehan, & 91

Hastie, 2010), Sport Education (SE) (Siedentop, 1994), Teaching Games for Understanding 92

(TGfU) (Bunker & Thorpe, 1982), Direct Instruction, Personal and Social Responsibility 93

(TPSR) (Hellison, 2011), Peer Teaching, Inquiry Teaching, and the Personalized System of 94

Instruction. We advocate and apply a multi-model approach in our respective PETE 95

programs. For example, Tim regularly teaches about and through CL, TGfU, and TPSR while 96

Ashley uses CL, SE, and TGfU; however, providing a coherent analysis of the challenges of 97

implementing multiple models is beyond the scope of this paper. We will therefore use 98

Metzler’s defining aspects to talk generally about models but make specific reference to CL 99

as an analytic example. We chose CL for several reasons: (a) its ability to be implemented in 100

the classroom and gymnasium, (b) despite its existence for more than 30 years there are 101

relatively few examples of the use of CL in physical education when compared with some 102

other models (Dyson & Casey, 2012), and (c) it is a model that we have both had experience 103

implementing in our programs and practice. 104

Foundations of a pedagogical model. Metzler (2011) argued that each model is based 105

on learning theory, providing the philosophy and rationale for its use and offering concrete 106

examples of the most effective conditions in which it might be used. For example, CL 107

emerged in the 1920s following research into the effects of cooperation on performance and 108

drawing from studies in social relationships, group dynamics, learning, and instruction (Antil, 109

Jenkins, Wayne, & Vadasy, 1998). In the 1970s cooperation was used as a pedagogical 110

foundation for learning, focusing on two-way processes in which the outputs of each 111

participant become inputs for their peers in an exchange of ideas (Bishop & Mahajan, 2005). 112


7

Teaching and learning features. Stemming from each model’s theoretical base, 113

Metzler held that there are several features that separate each model from the others. This 114

includes a “set of managerial plans, decisions, operations, learning activities, and 115

assessments”, and descriptions of the “roles and responsibilities for the teacher and students” 116

(Metzler, 2011, p. 23). For example, in CL these features include positive interdependence, 117

individual accountability, face-to-face interaction, small group skills, and group processing 118

(Dyson & Casey, 2012; Johnson & Johnson, 2009). In CL interdependence between teacher-119

student and student-student is used to deliberately challenge traditional notions around who 120

should be in charge of classroom dialogue. Furthermore, small, structured, heterogeneous 121

groups are used to support learning in the affective, cognitive, and psychomotor domains 122

(Dyson & Casey, 2012). Other decisions around content selection, managerial control, task 123

presentation, engagement patterns, instructional interactions, pacing, and task progression are 124

also key parts of teaching and learning using models (Metzler, 2011). 125

Implementation needs and modifications. Each model represents a “plan of action” 126

that, when faithfully implemented, leads to achievement of the desired learning outcomes. 127

Teachers are expected to understand the different knowledge, skills, and abilities required of 128

learners so a model’s full potential can be reached. As with any pedagogical approach, 129

teachers must understand the contextual requirements in which the model will be used (i.e. 130

student characteristics, facilities, equipment, time, and learning materials) and modify their 131

implementation to fit their students’ needs (Metzler, 2011). In CL, a key pedagogical 132

implication is that the role of the teacher and student(s) needs to be changed with the teacher 133

acting as facilitator. Furthermore, features such as face-to-face interaction or small group 134

skills need to be learnt and this takes time; however, it is the combination of features of the 135

model, modifications, and contextual requirements that help define the model and its learning 136

outcomes. 137


8

In order for MBP to appeal to prospective teachers in a meaningful way and thus be 138

placed as a feasible means for reform, it seems imperative that teacher educators provide their 139

students with a transparent look at all parts of their teaching using MBP. As such, the purpose 140

of this study is to examine our experiences as teacher educators who teach using MBP. We 141

do so in an attempt to make “concerted efforts to develop, portray, and disseminate [our] 142

pedagogical insights” using teacher education as “a springboard for action and source of 143

knowledge to support educational change” (Loughran, 2013, p. 135). Furthermore, we 144

highlight the personal and professional benefits of engaging in collaborative self-study for 145

those who work in PETE. 146

Method 147

Self-study of teacher education practice (SSTEP) research enables practitioners “to 148

understand practice better, share the assertions for understanding and action in practice, and 149

create more vibrant living educational theory” (Pinnegar & Hamilton, 2009, p. 5). SSTEP 150

research aims to share insights into the complexities of teaching and teacher education 151

practice from the perspectives of those who engage in that practice in order to improve both 152

personally and professionally (Samaras & Freese, 2006). A key element in SSTEP therefore 153

involves considerations of the intertwined nature of self and practice. Kelchtermans (2009) 154

suggests that in order to understand what teachers do we also need to understand who 155

teachers are. Examining self-understanding through practice therefore constitutes a crucial 156

aspect of teaching. It is for this reason that collaborative self-studies can be particularly 157

beneficial for teacher educators, as new understandings of self and practice are made possible 158

through discussion, debate, and analysis with critical friends (Bullough & Pinnegar, 2001). In 159

this sense, collaborative self-studies can provide teacher educators with heightened self-160

awareness, both intellectually and emotionally. For example, Petrarca and Bullock (2013) 161


9

stated that their “collaborative self-study became not only a source of critical friendship, but 162

also a way for us to name, interpret, and critique our pedagogical approaches” (p. 13). 163

In undertaking our inquiry we have sought to deliberately align our work with 164

LaBoskey’s (2004) five characteristics of self-study. Specifically, our design: 165

(a) was self-initiated and self-focused. Based on informal conversations we had with 166

each other about our respective teacher education practice, we identified specific and 167

salient aspects that provided us with challenging moments, dilemmas, and 168

frustrations. A common theme for both of us was the challenges we faced teaching 169

teachers about and through MBP; 170

(b) was improvement-aimed. We conducted the inquiry with the intention of 171

improving our own understanding and enactment of MBP. Further, through sharing 172

our experiences, understandings, and insights that we gained through the collaborative 173

self-study, we hoped that others could draw upon that information to improve their 174

own practice; 175

(c) was interactive in terms of its process. We used each other’s experiences, 176

questions, challenges, and analyses to better understand our own. For example, upon 177

reading passages from Ashley’s reflective diaries, Tim was often stimulated to apply 178

what he had read and interpreted from Ashley’s experience to “map onto” his own 179

reflections, gaining new and previously unforeseen insights (and vice versa). Also, we 180

both acted as independent observers of each other’s initial reflections and analyses; 181

(d) used multiple qualitative methods. As described later in the methods section, we 182

gathered and analyzed qualitative data from reflective diaries and journals, field notes, 183

and lesson plans; 184


10

(e) provides exemplar-based validation. That is, we rely on others in our community 185

of teachers and teacher educators to determine whether our findings are trustworthy 186

and meaningful. 187

In the following sections we describe the respective contexts in which our collaborative self-188

study was conducted, and outline the methods we used to gather and analyze data. 189

Context of the Study 190

For readers to engage with our insights we have made efforts to highlight specific 191

details about the contextual features in which we taught and conducted our inquiry 192

(Kelchtermans & Hamilton, 2004). Both authors teach in university-based pre-service PETE 193

programs, having had prior experience as secondary school physical education teachers. Tim 194

taught in schools for five years and during his PhD taught physical education methods to 195

primary generalists in a pre-service teacher education program. At the time of writing he was 196

in his second year teaching pre-service physical education teachers at Memorial University of 197

Newfoundland in Canada. Ashley taught for fifteen years in schools and at the time of 198

writing was in his fifth year at the University of Bedfordshire in the United Kingdom. 199

Examining our socializing experiences as teachers who became teacher educators (Casey & 200

Fletcher, 2012) provided us with important insights about how we identified and addressed 201

the different challenges of teaching in school and pre-service contexts. Like others who have 202

studied their own transitional experiences into teacher education (e.g., Bullock, 2009), we 203

find the different pedagogical requirements of teaching teachers challenging and complex and 204

believe that our school teaching experiences alone could not have prepared us to perform the 205

role effectively. Further, we continue to be challenged by adjusting (or indeed abandoning) 206

our school-based pedagogies to suit the needs of prospective teachers, rather than of children 207

and youth. These enduring dilemmas provide a necessary impetus for us to continue to study 208

our practice in order to improve how we go about teaching teachers. 209


11

Drawing on the work of Hastie and Casey (in review), we feel it necessary to 210

articulate the extent to which we considered the fidelity of our teaching practices to the CL 211

model. We do this to show how our teaching practices were (or were not) congruent with 212

benchmarks described in the CL model and not simply our own versions of CL. Hastie and 213

Casey (in review) identified the following features as being salient in any description of 214

researchers’ use of pedagogical models: (a) rich description of the curricular elements of the 215

unit, (b) a detailed validation of the model implementation, and (c) a detailed description of 216

the program context (including previous experiences of the teacher and students with the 217

model or with models-based practice). 218

Unit descriptions. The unit that provided the context for Tim’s data was a double-219

credit elementary physical education curriculum and methods course carried out during a 13-220

week term. There were 22 students in the class, all of whom were in their third or fourth year 221

of an undergraduate degree in physical education. The first six weeks of the course involved 222

intensive campus-based coursework where students learned about physical education content 223

and pedagogies. Thematic topics addressed throughout the term included: becoming a 224

teacher, classroom community and organization, program planning, developing a vision for 225

teaching, assessment, and teaching inclusively. In each of the first six weeks, students 226

attended two 1-hour classes in a “traditional” classroom environment (that is, a lecture-type 227

class) and two 2-hour classes in the gymnasium. CL was the main approach through which 228

the thematic units were taught in the classroom and gymnasium. The second seven weeks 229

was a blend of on-campus coursework (maintaining the two 1-hour classes) and a supervised 230

field experience, where students spent three mornings a week in a primary/elementary school 231

(K-6) with a specialist physical education teacher. Students were paired with peers for their 232

placements and encouraged to collaborate, team-teach, share planning, reflect together, and 233

so on. 234


12

For Ashley, the unit of significance for the incidences reported in this study was 235

taught to a group of 25 undergraduate students in their second year of a four-year PETE 236

program. The track and field component of the unit ran for twelve weeks and was delivered 237

practically (that is, in a gymnasium or on playing fields) in weekly two-hour sessions. To 238

ensure model fidelity Ashley used materials that had been previously validated (see Casey, 239

Dyson, & Campbell, 2009) as (a) appropriate for the 11-14 year old students that PETE 240

students were expected to teach, and (b) prioritizing the five elements of CL. 241

Validation of model implementation. To consider the extent to which our teacher 242

education practice reflected the benchmarks of CL, we used Metzler’s (2011) 243

recommendations both as we developed our respective units and after we had taught the 244

units. As such we conducted document analysis on our unit and lesson plans to understand 245

the extent to which we were being faithful to the features of CL. We analyzed each of our 246

lesson plans to consider the extent to which we applied the following essential elements: 247

positive interdependence among student; face-to-face interaction; individual accountability; 248

interpersonal and small group skills, and; group processing (Metzler, 2011). 249

Ashley has devoted considerable time and energy (both in his scholarship and 250

teaching) to understanding the extent to which his teaching faithfully aligns with the tenets of 251

the CL model, both in this study and elsewhere (cf. Casey, 2013; Casey, et al., 2009; Dyson 252

& Casey, 2012). Analysis of Ashley’s lesson plans showed a more complete faithfulness to 253

the essential elements of CL than Tim’s. As we show in the results of this study, it was Tim’s 254

inexperience with using CL in schools and universities that may partially explain why the 255

version of CL that he employed might fit somewhere between what Curtner-Smith, Hastie, 256

and Kinchin (2008) described as “full” and “watered down” versions of model 257

implementation. For example, he regularly mixed small group membership rather than 258

maintaining the same groups throughout a unit or task. 259


13

Program context. An important contextual feature of this study is the extent and 260

nature of our respective school and university teaching experiences using CL. While Tim had 261

not implemented CL (or indeed any other pedagogical model) as a secondary teacher, Ashley 262

examined his use of MBP, including CL, in his teaching over a seven-year period for his 263

PhD. For Ashley, this knowledge and experience of using CL was drawn upon extensively to 264

inform his teacher education practice. This contrasted with Tim’s more limited school 265

teaching experience where he did not use MBP and implemented practice that might be 266

described as traditional (for example, short units consisting of primarily team sports using 267

direct instruction). Although he had a basic awareness of pedagogical models, Tim had never 268

seen a colleague use MBP, nor did he know where to begin if he ever wanted to implement 269

this in his own program. It was not until he took courses during his PhD that he came to 270

realize the potential of MBP and began to use the TPSR and TGfU models in a pre-service 271

program. When he took on a faculty position in 2011, he was interested in learning more 272

about and teaching through CL. As a result, Tim had no practical experience of CL or any 273

other models to draw from, and he could only imagine how this approach to teaching might 274

work in either schools or universities. 275

In the units of work that provide the main source of data gathering and analysis for 276

this study, neither Tim nor his students had any experience with CL. This was a significant 277

point for Tim, providing much of the focus for the challenges he faced. Similarly, while 278

Ashley had over a decade of experience of using CL, his students had no experience with the 279

model. Therefore, while he did not face the need to learn to teach in a new way (as Tim had 280

to do), he was required to teach his students not only about track and field, but also about CL. 281

Data Sources and Analysis 282

We drew from three qualitative data sources, relying mostly upon open-ended 283

reflective diaries and fieldnotes. As we have outlined in previous collaborative self-studies 284


14

that we have conducted together (Casey and Fletcher, 2012) our views of reflective practice 285

and the purposes of reflecting draw heavily from Schön’s (1983) concepts of reflecting-on-286

action and in-action. According to Russell (2005), reflection-on-action typically involves 287

thinking back on previous events, while reflection-in-action involves thinking about how an 288

unexpected event in teaching led to a reframing of practice, and consequently, a new view or 289

perspective. Ashley’s reflective diaries have been written daily since 5th September 2009 (his 290

first day in teacher education), providing a written narrative of his experiences working in the 291

university environment. His diaries have been written as personal reflections on-action with 292

the intent of aiding Ashley in better understanding how the contextual elements of high 293

school and university settings have influenced his teaching. Tim’s written reflections have 294

had a slightly different focus to Ashley and are certainly logged less frequently: he has 295

compiled reflections from every PETE class he has taught since 2008. Although Tim’s 296

reflections have been largely open-ended he has tended to focus on the extent to which he 297

was able to: identify instances where his teaching visions, planning, and actions have 298

connected coherently (or seemed disconnected); make explicit his tacit knowledge of 299

teaching to student teachers, and identify challenges and ways forward for future practice. 300

Our reflective diaries were supplemented by fieldnotes written during teaching or 301

planning PETE classes. Cumulatively, there were over 1500 diary entries containing more 302

than 300 000 words. Elsewhere (Casey & Fletcher, 2012), we have outlined how we used our 303

reflective diaries and fieldnotes as “literature of place” (Kelly, 2005) to situate ourselves back 304

at the time of our written experiences. Similarly, Ham and Kane (2004) refer to such data as 305

an archive “that serves as an ongoing stimulus to even more data” (p. 114). Thus, re-reading 306

our reflections (at times several years after they were written) as artifacts provided a third 307

data source, giving us new perspectives and insights into our use of pedagogical models in 308

PETE. 309


15

Analysis involved four steps. First, we read all components of our own data set 310

independently and using content analysis and constant comparison (Corbin & Strauss, 2008) 311

recorded instances where critical incidents, challenges, contradictions, and “aha moments” in 312

our practices were found. We used an inductive approach to analyzing the data where we let 313

our identification of concepts, themes, and ideas be guided by the extent to which our 314

research question/purpose was evident, rather than by pre-existing theories. Second, with our 315

independently coded data, we shared the instances we had identified that we individually felt 316

represented pressing challenges in teaching about and through MBP. Each example was 317

offered, and then questioned and critiqued by the other author in an attempt to tease out key 318

elements of the problem related to teaching practice. By engaging in this step we attempted to 319

act as external analysts of each other’s reflections, seeking clarity by asking questions and 320

probing for deeper meaning where appropriate. We did this as a way of holding each other 321

accountable for interpreting the data to ensure some sense of trustworthiness. As teacher 322

educators in physical education we felt we were able to relate to and find individual meaning 323

from the scenarios each other has described, validating one another’s analyses (LaBoskey, 324

2004). Third, once we identified examples that both of us found meaningful, insightful, or 325

that highlighted a particularly problematic aspect of practice, we collated those examples into 326

themes. We sought to identify themes that we felt would act as exemplars (LaBoskey, 2004) 327

or “ring true” for readers situated in PETE contexts. In some instances data were moved 328

based on discussion until agreement was reached. We repeated this step until we were 329

satisfied that analysis of the data had reached some level of theoretical saturation (Corbin & 330

Strauss, 2008). Finally, Ashley engaged in member checking with a colleague who was 331

external to the research. Ashley did this because a specific interaction that took place with 332

Kieran (pseudonym) provided a salient moment in the analysis that highlighted a discrepancy 333


16

between theoretical and practical understandings of implementing CL. In this way, Ashley 334

wanted to ensure that his interpretation of the events “meshed” with Kieran’s interpretation. 335

Results 336

Soon after we began our roles as teacher educators, we both experienced disruptions of our 337

respective school practices and were quick to learn that what worked when teaching 338

secondary school students would not necessarily work in pre-service teacher education. Thus, 339

one of the first tensions we had to address involved the crucial element of context and its role 340

in shaping our teaching decisions and practices. 341

In transition: Opportunities gained and lost 342

Tim found teaching in a new context to be liberating and he eschewed many of the 343

outdated, teacher-centered approaches he had come to realize had dominated his practice. He 344

committed to adopting a fresh approach to teaching in PETE in the form of MBP. While this 345

approach might be considered research-informed, innovative and cutting edge, it should also 346

be considered new from the practitioner’s perspective. For Tim this meant it was grounded in 347

theory but not yet in practice. He liked the ideas of MBP but initially could not draw from 348

experience to understand how those ideas might “look, sound, and feel” in a gymnasium with 349

pre-service teachers, let alone with school students. In contrast, Ashley’s approach was old: it 350

had been developed over many years of intensive planning and research, was couched in 351

MBP, and it formed the heart of an innovative school practice that had garnered him 352

accolades and admiration. Yet – as he would quickly learn – it would have to be thought 353

about in an entirely different way when working with a different group of learners with 354

different needs. 355

A major difference between our early experiences using MBP in pre-service settings 356

was therefore based on the extent of our theoretical and practical understandings of the 357

challenges of using MBP. We both felt we were using innovative practice but it is how we 358


17

handled the challenges we faced in doing so that serves to differentiate our experiences. For 359

example, in adopting MBP in school settings Ashley had already taken the risks necessary to 360

have his innovative practice challenged, recognized and validated, both personally and 361

publicly. This certainly provided confidence in how he faced and overcame the challenges of 362

teaching using MBP in the pre-service program. However, for Tim, the anxiety, risk, and fear 363

of the unknown posed significant challenges to the likelihood that he would persevere with 364

MBP. Both Ashley and Tim were therefore vulnerable in using MBP in the pre-service 365

context but for different reasons: Ashley had expectations attached to his implementation of 366

MBP, and both he and his colleagues held those expectations. In contrast, Tim had few 367

expectations of his implementation of MBP; yet, fear of appearing to be incompetent to 368

students and a constant voice asking: “Am I doing this right?” were significant features of his 369

initial foray into MBP. 370

Juggling the “hows” and “whys” of teaching 371

Loughran (2006) explains that for pre-service teachers to develop complex 372

understandings of teaching practice it is crucial that the tacit knowledge of teaching be made 373

explicit by teacher educators in order to articulate the “why” of practice and not just to 374

demonstrate the “how”. Importantly, we realized that if we intended to provide strong 375

learning experiences for our students we had to move beyond simply modeling teaching of 376

MBP by having them experience a model as learners. However, this was a challenging 377

prospect because in our school practice there was no need or expectation from students or 378

colleagues to explain the pedagogical reasoning behind our actions; we simply implemented 379

what we felt was appropriate for the outcomes we wanted our students to achieve. We also 380

understood that we could not be satisfied with having pre-service teachers “merely reading or 381

being told about the model during classroom-based lectures” (Curtner-Smith, et al., 2008, p. 382

98) and had to articulate to students how we were teaching using MBP while we also taught 383


18

about MBP. This involved explicitly describing how each of our teaching actions aligned, for 384

example, with CL, and explaining why we were doing things as we taught. This start-stop-385

start feeling conflicted with much of what we believed reflected strong practice in schools, 386

where we relied upon a sense of flow and were conscious of transitions within and between 387

classrooms. For example, Tim wrote: 388

Coming away from today’s class I am left feeling a tension between articulating 389

the reasons behind my teaching and disrupting the flow of my lessons. I tried to 390

justify this to myself by acknowledging that teaching is messy and often veers off 391

the intended path. This led me to wonder if, in order to be most effective, whether 392

articulating reasons behind teaching decisions needs to be quite tightly scripted 393

and anticipated if it is to seem as a coherent lesson. 394

Attempting to strike a balance between articulating and modeling the “hows” and 395

“whys” of teaching required significant intellectual and practical demands in terms of: (a) 396

teaching about the principles of MBP, (b) actually teaching and demonstrating how to teach 397

using MBP, and (c) unpacking reasons why we made the pedagogical decisions we did in 398

situ. The following passage from Ashley’s reflective diary shows the difficulties he faced in 399

teaching about and through CL: 400

What do I want student teachers to learn about [CL]? Continuing to look at the 401

prior learning disaster2, what can I glean from it? I had a difficult group whose 402

prior learning in [track and field] had generally been poor. I wanted to showcase 403

an alternative approach but I didn’t consider that the session, as planned, was 404

asking too much of both the students and me. Furthermore, I didn’t take into 405

account my prior learning about CL. I should really have known that there was 406

too much to do. 407

2 Caused by trying to fit too much practical content into a 2-hour session.


19

In Ashley’s terms, he felt that he was able to “show-case” CL by modeling the approach, 408

using small groups and asking students to learn with, by, and for one another. However, in 409

order to move beyond the “disaster” of the previous session, he realized the need to be more 410

explicit in teaching about the model as he taught through it, explaining the “hows” and 411

“whys” as he was teaching. 412

Alternatively, the tensions Tim faced hinged upon the nature of his own learning 413

about, and implementation of, CL which was driven by theory rather than practice. Initially 414

he felt he had a fairly strong grasp of the “whys” of CL but was less sure about the “hows”. 415

While he used the opportunity for teaching renewal to reframe his practice he found more 416

problems than solutions in adjusting to a new approach. Not only was he teaching different 417

types of learners in a new setting, he was attempting to implement an innovative approach 418

without the benefits of observing experienced, skilled teachers use CL. As such, his decisions 419

and thoughts about CL (and MBP more broadly) were entirely researcher-centered – 420

assumptions about what worked, what didn’t, and the reasons why were made purely from 421

his own reading. Even though he was able to draw from the theoretical guidelines of CL, 422

when it came to their implementation he was constantly questioning his actions due to doubts 423

about whether he was staying true to the model’s principles. While he was initially positive 424

about his first few classes, Tim wrote: “I wish I had come across [MBP] sooner so that I 425

could see how it worked in [my secondary classes], rather than relying on written research 426

done by other teachers”. 427

While Ashley had the benefit of understanding CL from both theoretical and practical 428

perspectives his teacher educator colleagues had experiences similar to Tim, with few having 429

any practical experience of CL to draw from. This meant that Ashley not only faced the 430

challenge of articulating “how and why” to pre-service teachers but also to his colleagues. 431

Many of the classes he taught involved a team approach where several faculty members were 432


20

responsible for teaching individual units that made up a parent course. While his colleagues 433

were responsive to his suggestions that they introduce CL into the teacher education 434

curriculum as a conceptual framework, he had not fully anticipated the disparity in his 435

colleagues’ knowledge and practical understandings. For example, Kieran, a colleague of 436

Ashley’s, had an opportunity to use CL for the first time and, like Tim (in another time and 437

place) set about learning the theory behind the model from a widely used text. But when it 438

came to co-planning their lessons, Kieran’s reliance on the theoretical aspects of teaching 439

using CL led to a disparity in understanding between he and Ashley: 440

Part of the problem is that Kieran does the thinking first, and this is where we 441

diverge. His expertise is in [track and field] while mine is in CL yet we are 442

both trying to fit that into each other’s expertise. Kieran has the first call [as unit 443

leader], however, and I am struggling to fit his model of athletics [as a sub-elite 444

athlete] into his perception of CL [as an academic]. 445

As the situation transpired, the value of Ashley’s experience using CL in secondary 446

teaching still held. However, it led him to realize that simply transferring knowledge of CL 447

from school practice into the university setting was not tenable. In the past, he had been 448

solely responsible for planning and teaching his own classes and was somewhat free to do so 449

in whatever way he liked, as long as the curriculum outcomes were being met. He knew the 450

“hows” and “whys” of teaching using MBP but he had never had to articulate this knowledge 451

to students or peers. Now he had to work with colleagues to ensure that, in each of the 452

individual units, pre-service teachers were not only observing a coherent set of CL practices 453

but also that they heard coherent messages about CL. The combination of teaching teachers 454

and teaching teacher educators about MBP was difficult; by his own admission Ashley was a 455

little intimidated by his initial university teaching experiences: 456


21

The second [lesson] was just ... well … flat. The students weren’t great, the 457

subject was out of my comfort zone but the pedagogy was just not where I 458

wanted it to be. I guess that this is the problem with teaching someone else’s 459

lessons. 460

The highs and lows of teaching in a new context 461

Ashley found that the contextual differences in teaching using MBP in school and 462

university were significant aspects in shaping the doubts he had about his teaching. Even 463

though the students he taught in school mostly valued their experiences of MBP (Casey, 464

2013; Casey, et al., 2009), it was clear that the pre-service teachers whom he was now 465

teaching had different learning priorities. For example, as is so often reported in teacher 466

education research, students took on a “ ‘hunter-gatherer’ approach to accumulating teaching 467

procedures” (Loughran, 2006, p. 45) and started to complain about the lack of practical “tips 468

and tricks” that they were learning. As Ashley reflected, they wanted more “drills […] that 469

they can replicate or adopt wholesale in their teaching” or to learn “more about behavior 470

management [and] timings in a lesson”. 471

These comments show a disconnection between the pedagogical aspirations of the 472

teacher educators (including Ashley) and the pre-service teachers, highlighting an enduring 473

problem at the root of the theory-practice divide in teacher education (Korthagen & Kessels, 474

1999). However, rather than being confident that MBP was a positive direction for new 475

teachers’ practice and physical education as a subject, Ashley sometimes gave in to students’ 476

expectations around teaching. Due to the new context in which he was working, he 477

approached his teaching more cautiously and put aside his previous innovative practices, 478

seeking instead to match the practice stereotypes he remembered from his own undergraduate 479

experience. 480


22

For Ashley finding solutions to this challenge proved difficult, involving negotiations 481

around the teacher educators’ and pre-service teachers’ respective expectations. Further, there 482

was an acknowledgement from both parties that it would take time to arrive at a mutually 483

agreed upon pedagogical direction. To echo Lundgren (1983), the difference for Ashley was 484

between the hope and the happening. 485

Some [students] hadn’t read the chapter but not many. What was more 486

significant was the number who just didn’t get it. It was too difficult or maybe 487

too clever, or maybe it was them who just weren’t clever enough. Wait on. I’m 488

the teacher here. It’s not about learning it wrong, but about teaching it right. So 489

it’s my fault. Well, our fault [including other colleagues]. Confusion reigns 490

because we got it wrong. Then they [students] tried to explain, but they 491

couldn’t; they didn’t understand. Then I tried to explain, but to be honest I was 492

only a couple of steps ahead of them. I’d found the reading a challenge too, but 493

I was better placed to re-consider the words and compare them to a deeper 494

understanding. We moved the idea forwards, but it wasn’t an easy journey as 495

we had many misunderstandings to overcome and repair. 496

In contrast, although doubt still loomed large in Tim’s implementation of CL, he felt 497

somewhat more comfortable in the murkiness. This may be partially due to the expectations 498

and experiences of the pre-service elementary generalist teachers he taught when he first 499

experimented with MBP through TPSR and TGfU. This is significant because, unlike 500

prospective specialist physical education teachers, many were unsatisfied with their prior 501

learning in physical education and were keen to learn about new approaches (Fletcher, 2012). 502

So in the initial stages of his implementing MBP it was necessary for Tim to engage in a lot 503

of reading about the models and planning for his classes, he found he was learning about 504

content and pedagogy along with his students as he was teaching. Those students came to the 505


23

PETE setting with few prior assumptions about how MBP would “look” and play out. As his 506

confidence and willingness to adopt MBP grew, Tim used his own background and 507

experiences as an example to challenge pre-service teachers to think of themselves as learners 508

while teaching: 509

I think I am one of those people that Siedentop (2002) might have thought of as 510

“unskilled” when it comes to content knowledge. I am hoping to draw on 511

students’ content knowledge quite a lot then and I hope that I can keep this 512

commitment. It might also be a good way to model learning from students, i.e., 513

disrupting the “teacher as expert” point of view. 514

Despite the uncertainties Tim felt in his new approach, he found that sharing his doubts in his 515

knowledge of teaching using MBP had led him to become more intentional in the ways he 516

unpacked the “hows” and “whys” of teaching with his students. In his third year of using 517

MBP Tim found that he was being more consistent in: 518

…stopping and thinking about what and why I am doing things, and inviting 519

students to stop and think about their learning and the effectiveness of [MBP]. 520

While I have felt vulnerable in stopping and inviting critique (and many times it 521

has been forthcoming), I feel that… I am thinking more deliberately about my 522

actions. 523

These examples provide evidence that is contrary to what we had expected would lead 524

to a commitment to teach using MBP in pre-service teacher education. Specifically, because 525

Ashley had extensive experience and was committed to using MBP in schools, it would have 526

been fair to assume that he would have similarly committed to adopting the practice in pre-527

service contexts. However, the different role that Ashley now assumed and the different 528

institutional context in which he worked led him to doubt whether innovative practice carried 529

the same currency in the university as it did in schools – at least with the students whom he 530


24

was teaching. Further, because Tim had no experience implementing MBP in schools, it was 531

perhaps more likely that he would have abandoned MBP in the face of barriers. This is 532

because he was faced with the demands of learning about a completely new approach to 533

teaching while simultaneously teaching about that new type of teaching. 534

Discussion 535

The purposes of our paper were (a) to examine the challenges we faced in using MBP in our 536

respective programs, and (b) to highlight how collaborative self-study could be used to 537

identify and understand those challenges. Although we used the example of CL as an analytic 538

case in this study, our experiences teaching about and through other models such as TGfU or 539

Sport Education reveal similar challenges and uncertainties. We concurred with the views of 540

some in physical education that MBP is an approach through which radical reform might 541

occur (Kirk, 2013), however, we felt that a crucial element of reform was missing. 542

Specifically, for prospective teachers to learn about the problematic and complex nature of 543

innovative teaching practice (in the form of MBP), those charged with the task of teaching 544

teachers should understand the problematic and complex nature of adopting innovative 545

practice themselves. Yet, prior to our research little was known about the challenges that 546

physical education teacher educators themselves face in learning about and implementing 547

MBP in university programs: in essence, the who (Kelchtermans, 2009) was missing from 548

any discussions of MBP in the context of PETE. Although our findings are highly personal 549

and contextual, our collaborative self-study provides a first step toward addressing this gap. 550

We hope that sharing our vulnerabilities and personal challenges encourages others in PETE 551

to similarly share their struggles and successes in adopting innovative pedagogical practice. 552

If, as Zeichner (1999) suggests, teacher educators are uniquely placed to understand, analyze, 553

and overcome the challenges of teacher education, such sharing is imperative. 554


25

Despite the challenges we faced, we remained committed to adopting MBP 555

throughout our first years of university teaching. Metzler’s (2011) claims that implementing 556

MBP is hard work for schoolteachers resonated with our experiences teaching in universities. 557

Despite our diverse experiences learning about and teaching using MBP, through using the 558

example of CL our research has demonstrated that it is not as easy as learning about teaching 559

practices from a book, nor is it as simple as transferring practices that were effective in 560

schools to universities. There was an extensive commitment of time, energy, and emotion in 561

trying to make MBP work. Ashley had already experienced such a commitment as he 562

adopted MBP in schools, but he had to persevere through this for a second time in adapting 563

his practice to the university context. Much like his school experiences, there were moments 564

when he questioned the value of what he was trying to do; however, reflection and inquiry 565

into the purposes and outcomes of both MBP and his own teaching values served to reinforce 566

to him that such commitments were worthwhile. In contrast, Tim had no idea what to expect 567

in terms of committing to a new approach. His commitment was required on two fronts: (a) 568

learning about the models and (b) implementing what he was learning in his practice. While 569

there were times when Tim questioned the value of committing to these new ways, like 570

Ashley, self-study provided him with evidence that such commitment was needed if change 571

were to occur in his pre-service classroom and beyond. In common for both of us were 572

regular feelings of frustration, vulnerability, and doubt; however, we also experienced 573

feelings of satisfaction in finding new pedagogical insights or by seeing “seeds planted” and 574

assumptions about teaching and learning disrupted in pre-service teachers whom we taught. 575

Our collaborative self-study also highlighted how we were coming to know our 576

respective teaching selves and practices in more nuanced and refined ways. For example, 577

Tim showed evidence that he was becoming better at articulating the tacit knowledge behind 578

the teaching decisions he was making. In this way, he felt that he was learning more about 579


26

teaching in a broad sense but he was also learning more about priorities for his practice. 580

Alternatively, Ashley was challenged more by the contexts in which he was teaching rather 581

than in what he was teaching. In particular, he was challenged by the expectations of pre-582

service teachers to amass “tips and tricks” of teaching in order to “do teaching”. They 583

appeared less interested in the broader justifications for a pedagogical approach and what it 584

could achieve in the long-term but were instead looking for ways to survive in schools. This 585

is not to be critical of pre-service teachers for their feelings; indeed, Ashley also found 586

himself doing what he needed to survive in the university. But through Ashley sharing the 587

difficulties in his teacher education practice with his colleagues and students, he was able to 588

articulate how MBP represented a meaningful, student-centered approach to teaching that 589

required skills far beyond the technical that were desired by most of his students. 590

These findings also highlight how beneficial engaging in a scholarship of teaching 591

(Kelchtermans, 2009) can be for teachers – regardless of their teaching context. Through 592

engaging in the study of our practice we became better able to make explicit our tacit 593

knowledge of teaching. Our analytic frame of attending to the “hows and whys” of teaching 594

using MBP proved especially useful in enabling us to understand and articulate tacit 595

knowledge to students. When teacher educators are able to make their tacit knowledge of 596

teaching practice explicit to students, more powerful influences on students’ understandings 597

of the complexities of teaching are likely (Grossman & McDonald, 2008; Loughran, 2006). 598

As such, we feel that teacher educators have a responsibility to engage in the study and 599

sharing of the pedagogical challenges they face. Indeed, if innovative approaches are to gain 600

a foothold in university PETE programs and school physical education teachers’ practices, 601

communication of the complexities, problems, and strategies used to overcome them are 602

required. Despite Zeichner’s (1999) acknowledgement almost 15 years ago that self-study 603

represented one of the most significant advances in the field of teacher education, there 604


27

remain few examples of how physical education teacher educators have used self-study to 605

improve understandings of the complexity of teaching, or that demonstrate how PETE 606

scholars have gone about developing and articulating a pedagogy of teacher education. Our 607

study shows that the sharing that comes from engaging in discussion and debate with critical 608

friends led us to question our assumptions and practices about MBP. In turn, we are more 609

deliberate in our actions of using MBP in pre-service teacher education but are, at the same 610

time, open to the uncertainties that arise from trying to understand teacher education practice. 611

Such have been the findings of MBP in schools that Casey (2014) suggested that the 612

time to ask if these approaches work has passed; we must now seek to better understand how 613

they can work in the long-term. To do this teacher educators need to challenge not only 614

students’ expectations around what it means to teach but also their own pedagogies of 615

teacher education. We need to better understand both what MBP is and how those of us 616

charged with teacher education can teach teachers – theoretically and practically – to become 617

skillful proponents of robust and innovative approaches to teaching. Through self-study we 618

were able to articulate the “hows and whys” of teaching, which certainly aided in our own 619

understanding of teaching using MBP. We call upon other teacher educators involved in 620

PETE to not only articulate their knowledge and understanding of PETE practice but to share 621

how they developed that knowledge. 622

623

Acknowledgements: The authors wish to thank our two anonymous reviewers, and Nathan 624

Brubaker, Victoria Goodyear, and Kellie Baker for their comments on earlier versions of this 625

manuscript. 626

627


28

References 628

Antil, L. R., Jenkins, J. R., Wayne, S. K., & Vadasy, P. F. (1998). Cooperative learning: 629

Prevalence, conceptualizations, and the relation between research and practice. 630

American Educational Research Journal, 35, 419-454. 631

Armour, K.M. (2011). Sport Pedagogy: An introduction for teaching and coaching. London, 632

UK: Pearson. 633

Bailey, R., Armour, K., Kirk, D., Jess, M., Pickup, I., & Sandford, R. (2009). The educational 634

benefits claimed for physical education and youth sport: An academic review. 635

Research Papers in Education, 24, 1-27. 636

Berry, A. (2007). Tensions in teaching about teaching: Understanding practice as a teacher 637

educator. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. 638

Bishop, J. W., & Mahajan, A. (2005). The use of teams in organizations: When a good idea 639

isn’t and when a good idea goes bad. LabMedicine, 36, 281-285 640

Bullock, S. M. (2009). Learning to think like a teacher educator: Making the substantive and 641

syntactic structures of teaching explicit through self-study. Teachers and Teaching: 642

Theory and Practice, 15, 291-304. 643

Bullock, S. M., & Ritter, J. K. (2011). Exploring the transition into academia through 644

collaborative self-study. Studying Teacher Education, 7, 171-181. 645

Bullough, R. V. Jr., & Pinnegar, S. (2001). Guidelines for quality in autobiographical forms 646

of self-study research. Educational Researcher, 30(3), 13-21. 647

Bunker, D., & Thorpe, R. (1982). A model for the teaching of games in secondary schools. 648

Bulletin of Physical Education, 18(1): 5-8. 649

Casey, A. (2014). Models-based practice: Great white hope or white elephant? Physical 650

Education and Sport Pedagogy, 19(1): 18-34. 651


29

Casey, A. (2013). “Seeing the trees not just the wood”: Steps and not just journeys in teacher 652

action research. Educational Action Research, 21, 147-163. 653

Casey, A., Dyson, B., & Campbell, A. (2009). Action research in physical education: 654

Focusing beyond myself through cooperative learning. Educational Action Research, 655

17, 407-423. 656

Casey, A. & Fletcher, T. (2012). Trading places: From physical education teachers to teacher 657

educators. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 31, 362-380. 658

Corbin, J. M., & Strauss, A. L. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and 659

procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. 660

Curtner-Smith, M. D., Hastie, P. A., & Kinchin, G. D. (2008). Influence of occupational 661

socialization on beginning teachers’ interpretation and delivery of sport education. 662

Sport, Education and Society, 13, 97-117. 663

Dyson, B., & Casey, A. (Eds.). (2012). Cooperative learning in physical education: A 664

research-based approach. London, UK: Routledge. 665

Dyson, B. P., Linehan, N. R., & Hastie, P. A. (2010). The ecology of cooperative learning in 666

elementary physical education classes. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 667

29, 113–130. 668

Fletcher, T. (2012). Experiences and identities: Pre-service elementary classroom teachers 669

being and becoming teachers of physical education. European Physical Education 670

Review, 18, 380-395. 671

Grossman, P., & McDonald, M. (2008). Back to the future: Directions for research in 672

teaching and teacher education. American Educational Research Journal, 45, 184-673

205. 674


30

Gurvitch, R., & Tjeerdsma Blankenship, B. (2008). Chapter 6: Implementation of model-675

based Instruction—The induction years. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 676

27, 529-548. 677

Gurvitch, R., Tjeerdsma Blankenship, B., Metzler, M. W., & Lund, J. L. (2008). Chapter 3: 678

Student teachers’ implementation of model-based instruction: Facilitators and 679

inhibitors. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 27, 466-486. 680

Gurvitch, R., Lund, J. L., & Metzler, M. W. (2008). Chapter 1: Researching the adoption of 681

model-based instruction—Context and chapter summaries. Journal of Teaching in 682

Physical Education, 27, 449-456. 683

Haerens, L., Kirk, D., Cardon, G., & De Bourdeaudhuij, I. (2011): Toward the development 684

of a pedagogical model for health-based physical education. Quest, 63, 321-338. 685

Ham, V., & Kane, R. (2004). Finding a way through the swamp: A case for self-study as 686

research. In J. J. Loughran, M. L. Hamilton, V. K. LaBoskey, & T. Russell (Eds.). 687

International handbook of self-study of teaching and teacher education practices. (pp. 688

103-150). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. 689

Hastie, P. A. (Ed.) (2012). Sport education: International perspectives. Abingdon, UK: 690

Routledge. 691

Hastie, P. A., & Casey, A. (in review). Fidelity in models-based research in sport pedagogy: 692

A guide for future investigations. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 693

Harvey, S., & Jarrett, K. (2013). A review of the game-centred approaches to teaching and 694

coaching literature since 2006. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy. iFirst: 695

DOI:10.1080/17408989.2012.754005 696

Hellison, D. (2003). Teaching responsibility through physical activity (2nd ed.). Champaign, 697

IL: Human Kinetics. 698


31

Jewett, A., Bain, L., & Ennis, C. D. (1995). The curriculum process in physical education 699

(2nd ed.). Madison, WI: Brown and Benchmark. 700

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, F. P. (2009). Joining together: Group theory and group skills. 701

Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. 702

Kelchtermans, G. (2009). Who I am in how I teach is the message: Self-understanding, 703

vulnerability and reflection. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 15, 257-704

272. 705

Kelchtermans, G., & Hamilton, M. L. (2004). The dialectics of passion and theory: Exploring 706

the relation between self-study and emotion. In J. J. Loughran, M. L. Hamilton, V. K. 707

LaBoskey, & T. Russell (Eds.). International handbook of self-study of teaching and 708

teacher education practices. (pp. 785-810). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. 709

Kelly, T. (2005). Truth and fiction: seeing our rural selves. In. C. Mitchell, S. Weber, & K. 710

O’Reilly-Scanlon (Eds.), Just who do we think we are?: Methodologies for 711

autobiography and self-study in teaching (pp. 111-120). London, UK: Routledge 712

Falmer 713

Kirk, D. (2010). Physical education futures. London, UK: Routledge. 714

Kirk, D. (2013). Educational value and models-based practice in physical education. 715

Educational Philosophy and Theory. iFirst: DOI:10.1080/00131857.2013.785352. 716

Kitchen, J., Ciuffetelli Parker, D., & Gallagher, T. (2008). Authentic conversation as faculty 717

development: Establishing a self-study group in a faculty of education. Studying 718

Teacher Education, 4, 157-171. 719

Korthagen, F. A. J., & Kessels, J. P. A. M. (1999). Linking theory and practice: Changing the 720

pedagogy of teacher education. Educational Researcher, 28(4), 4-17. 721

LaBoskey, V. K. (2004). The methodology of self-study and its theoretical underpinnings. In 722

J. J. Loughran, M. L. Hamilton, V. K. LaBoskey, & T. Russell (Eds.), International 723


32

handbook of self-study of teaching and teacher education practices (pp. 817-869). 724

Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. 725

Lawson, H. A. (2009). Paradigms, exemplars and social change. Sport, Education and 726

Society, 14, 97-119. 727

Loughran, J. J. (2006). Developing a pedagogy of teacher education. London, UK: 728

Routledge. 729

Loughran, J. J. (2007). Enacting a pedagogy of teacher education. In T. Russell, & J. J. 730

Loughran (Eds.). Enacting a pedagogy of teacher education. (pp. 1-16). London, UK: 731

Routledge. 732

Loughran, J. J. (2013). Pedagogy: Making sense of the complex relationship between 733

teaching and learning. Curriculum Inquiry, 43, 118-141. 734

Lund, J. L., Gurvitch, R., & Metzler, M. W. (2008). Chapter 7: Influences on cooperating 735

teachers’ adoption of model-based instruction. Journal of Teaching in Physical 736

Education, 27, 549-570. 737

Lund, J. L., & Veal, M. L. (2008). Chapter 4: Measuring pupil learning—How do student 738

teachers assess within instructional models? Journal of Teaching in Physical 739

Education, 27, 487-511. 740

Lundgren, U. P. (1983). Curriculum theory, between hope and happening: Text and context 741

in curriculum. Geelong, AU: Deakin University Press. 742

Metzler, M. W. (2011). Instructional models for physical education (3rd ed.). Scottsdale, AZ: 743

Holcomb Hathaway Publishers. 744

Metzler, M. W., Lund, J. L., & Gurvitch, R. (2008). Chapter 2: Adoption of instructional 745

innovation across teachers’ career stages. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 746

27, 457-465. 747


33

Metzler, M. W., & McCullick, B. A. (2008). Chapter 5: Introducing innovation to those who 748

matter most—The P-12 pupils' perceptions of model-based instruction. Journal of 749

Teaching in Physical Education, 27, 512-528. 750

Penney, D., & Chandler, T. (2000). Physical education: What future(s)? Sport, Education and 751

Society, 5, 71-87. 752

Petrarca, D., & Bullock, S. M. (2013). Tensions between theory and practice: Interrogating 753

our pedagogy through collaborative self-study. Professional Development in 754

Education. iFirst: DOI: 10.1080/19415257.2013.801876. 755

Pinnegar, S., & Hamilton, M. L. (2009). Self-study of practice as a genre of qualitative 756

research. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. 757

Punch, K. F. (2009). Introduction to research methods in education. Thousand Oaks, CA: 758

Sage. 759

Russell, T. (2005). Can reflective practice be taught? Reflective Practice, 6, 199-204. 760

Samaras, A. P., & Freese, A. R. (2006). Self-study of teaching practices primer. New York, 761

NY: Peter Lang. 762

Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner. New York, NY: Basic Books. 763

Siedentop, D. (1994). Sport education: Quality PE through positive sport experiences. 764

Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. 765

Siedentop, D. (2002). Content knowledge for physical education. Journal of Teaching in 766

Physical Education, 21, 368-377. 767

Tinning, R. (2009). Pedagogy and human movement. London, UK: Routledge. 768

Zeichner, K. M. (1999). The new scholarship in teacher education. Educational Researcher, 769

28(9), 4-15. 770

the challenges of models-based practice in physical ... · physical education teacher education: a...

Documents